So far evidence suggests he was a lone wolf, likely he was symphatizer not a member of ISIS. However being a lone wolf doesnt mean his crime isnt islamic terrorism, ISIS doesnt have monopoly on that.

Honestly it doesn't seem to be Islamic terrorism (new info might surface so that's not a given), just current event colouring a pretty classic case of American mass shooting. People that tried to draw parallels with the Paris attack appear to have been wrong.

It's same case as San Bernardino, ISIS symphatizer goes on a killing spree. Both meet the criteria of islamic terrorism, they both have an element of islamist/islamic motivation. We don't need to guess what his thoughts were or completely untangle all of his motivation. We KNOW what he said himself, no need to resort to mind-reading and speculation.

Same; If there will be evidence that person who killed that british mp motivation was political it was will be a case of political, far right terrorism even if he likely worked alone.

I might just be a simple minded guy but I don't know what I could have done to understand his actions.

I can't for a moment give this guy even a ounce of doubt, please switch that word with what ever you please, he was a loser and took the loser's way out of life. It could have been daddy issues, ISIS, his beliefs, voices in his head(which I don't believe) or something else but from what I can see he worked, payed taxes, went to the gym and had the gainz, shagged a few girls and still played himself like a tool. Not unlike those other two in California he's left a child alone to deal with his fall out, fuck him.

No one wants to understand his daddy issues or give him the benefit of a doubt you idiot. You need to understand the threats and be able to classify them in order to have an effective risk management. A Virginia Tech, Aurara, 9/11, Columbine, San Bernardino, or an abortion clinic attack needs to be understood in terms of the risk vectors if one is to mitigate against them, or even discuss them intelligently. That is what the rest of us are trying to understand. You should STFU if you don't get it.

I'm just asking your opinion. It's easy to be a contrarian who never takes a firm position on anything. Many people spend their time here mocking other people's positions while never stating their own, or doing so in very vague terms. If you're going to mock someone's position, at least be clear what yours is. I'm honestly interested in knowing which group you believe represents the biggest terrorist threat.

I'm not an expert--on terrorism or law enforcement. As a lay citizen, yes, I'd agree that right now, Islamic fundamentalism poses the most serious threat to American citizens' lives via terrorist attacks. In this provisional agreement, I am taking a less "firm position" once again. I do so for two related reasons: 1) I don't pretend to be an expert on whatever I think; when I think that I might possibly be a distortion, i'd prefer not to make sweeping declarations that I'll defend no matter what. 2) I also know that taxonomizing things and attributing motives to acts is tricky. Yes, the recent massacre is linked to Islamic extremism because of what the dude said as he committed murder; it's far less clear that he had any kind of coherent allegiance or coordination or even worldview. It's quite possible in this case--although again, I can't be sure--that this was a closeted dude who lashed out by saying stupid shit. This doesn't completely disconnect the killing from Islam (one clear link could be religious anti-gay views); it just upends a straightforward attribution.

Yes, I have mocked your position and will continue to do so in this thread. I do so because you refuse the actual complexity involved in global issues AND in questions of causation and motivation. You simple start with oversimplifications like "Muslim ideas are dangerous so we keep Muslims out!" And then you insist that you're the most truthful and any attempts to think through the complications are PC librul evasions. In this particular case, you began with the blanket, unqualified, and frankly useless statement that Muslims cause the most terrorist attacks. (And we see the aftermath of that--you leave it to others to try to qualify what you could possibly mean, how you're wrong, etc.)

But perhaps the real reason I mock your position: it starts with an oversimplification as if it were truth and then keeps proclaiming on a "solution" that's not a solution at all. "Banning Muslim immigration" makes no sense. I keep asking you or others who mostly agree with you what you could possible mean. Ban all Muslims via a religious identity test? Muslims from specific nations? Who gets to choose? What happens to Muslims nations that are our allies, like Jordan? Or what about Muslim-majority countries like Malaysia? Do we stop granting visas? Of all sorts? (After all, the 9-11 attackers had visas.) Or do we only blocking refugees? If I have any firm position, it's that a blanket claim, "Let's stop letting Muslims in!" is risible for practical and strategic reasons in addition to ones of principle; I'm derisive because we might as well be talking in smart, detailed ways but instead we're taking time bickering over a reductive non-position.

But perhaps the real reason I mock your position: it starts with an oversimplification as if it were truth and then keeps proclaiming on a "solution" that's not a solution at all. "Banning Muslim immigration" makes no sense. I keep asking you or others who mostly agree with you what you could possible mean. Ban all Muslims via a religious identity test? Muslims from specific nations? Who gets to choose? What happens to Muslims nations that are our allies, like Jordan? Or what about Muslim-majority countries like Malaysia? Do we stop granting visas? Of all sorts? (After all, the 9-11 attackers had visas.) Or do we only blocking refugees? If I have any firm position, it's that a blanket claim, "Let's stop letting Muslims in!" is risible for practical and strategic reasons in addition to ones of principle; I'm derisive because we might as well be talking in smart, detailed ways but instead we're taking time bickering over a reductive non-position.

the fact alone that we arived at this level of specification mean I guess is a success for conversation on internet forum

Quote:

Originally Posted by erictheobscure

You simple start with oversimplifications like "Muslim ideas are dangerous so we keep Muslims out!" And then you insist that you're the most truthful and any attempts to think through the complications are PC librul evasions. In this particular case, you began with the blanket, unqualified, and frankly useless statement that Muslims cause the most terrorist attacks. (And we see the aftermath of that--you leave it to others to try to qualify what you could possibly mean, how you're wrong, etc.)

You took that issue with me but I can't agree fully on this one, you are right saying stuff like 'muslim ideas are dangerous' is an oversimplification but to make conversation more fluid is what we do all the time in conversations. It's sort of akin to saying Hey how dare you paint Hannibal Lecter in such oversimpified, negative light! What about all these days when he didn't kill anybody?! He only killed one peson in 2 years that means that for 729 days he was a decent person and only one day a killer.

However I must somewhat admit it was a good think you did it for the sake of being more specific in the discussion.

No one wants to understand his daddy issues or give him the benefit of a doubt you idiot. You need to understand the threats and be able to classify them in order to have an effective risk management. A Virginia Tech, Aurara, 9/11, Columbine, San Bernardino, or an abortion clinic attack needs to be understood in terms of the risk vectors if one is to mitigate against them, or even discuss them intelligently. That is what the rest of us are trying to understand. You should STFU if you don't get it.

Come on now, no need to be a dolt. Don't tell me that this forum and it's amazing internet sluths are going to do shit, get bent. This is nothing more than a trolling thread and if you think anything more is coming from here I have land you should see.

You've either asserted or implied positions like "understanding something bad is in some way an excuse for that bad thing" or "don't try to understand--just say 'fuck him' to assert your moral clarity." Those are harmful things to believe. Not because we need more internet sleuths or armchair psychologists, but because we need broad, public support for smart research & policymaking--the kind that doesn't just say "OMG CRAZY EVIL IS CRAZY EVIL WHAT ARE YOU GONNA DO" but actually does try to understand better how communal beliefs motivate/distort individual action (with the aim of preventing bad shit from happening, duh).

. It's sort of akin to saying Hey how dare you paint Hannibal Lecter in such oversimpified, negative light! What about all these days when he didn't kill anybody?!

No.

We're talking about a religion that encompasses a quarter of the human population right now. Even if that religion has a problem with extremism and fundamentalism manifesting itself in political ways, talking about that religion is nothing like understanding a pretend sociopath killer.

what I meant by it is that when we say(well at least I) 'muslim ideas are dangerous' for sake of conversation we don;'t go each time pointing out all nuances and non-problems of the matter, we focus on that 1 day in 730 when Hannibal is killing somone. But since you and i havent interacted on this subject before, and you experience on this subject may differ I can see where you're coming from I guess.

I'm not an expert--on terrorism or law enforcement. As a lay citizen, yes, I'd agree that right now, Islamic fundamentalism poses the most serious threat to American citizens' lives via terrorist attacks. In this provisional agreement, I am taking a less "firm position" once again. I do so for two related reasons: 1) I don't pretend to be an expert on whatever I think; when I think that I might possibly be a distortion, i'd prefer not to make sweeping declarations that I'll defend no matter what. 2) I also know that taxonomizing things and attributing motives to acts is tricky. Yes, the recent massacre is linked to Islamic extremism because of what the dude said as he committed murder; it's far less clear that he had any kind of coherent allegiance or coordination or even worldview. It's quite possible in this case--although again, I can't be sure--that this was a closeted dude who lashed out by saying stupid shit. This doesn't completely disconnect the killing from Islam (one clear link could be religious anti-gay views); it just upends a straightforward attribution.

Yes, I have mocked your position and will continue to do so in this thread. I do so because you refuse the actual complexity involved in global issues AND in questions of causation and motivation. You simple start with oversimplifications like "Muslim ideas are dangerous so we keep Muslims out!" And then you insist that you're the most truthful and any attempts to think through the complications are PC librul evasions. In this particular case, you began with the blanket, unqualified, and frankly useless statement that Muslims cause the most terrorist attacks. (And we see the aftermath of that--you leave it to others to try to qualify what you could possibly mean, how you're wrong, etc.)

But perhaps the real reason I mock your position: it starts with an oversimplification as if it were truth and then keeps proclaiming on a "solution" that's not a solution at all. "Banning Muslim immigration" makes no sense. I keep asking you or others who mostly agree with you what you could possible mean. Ban all Muslims via a religious identity test? Muslims from specific nations? Who gets to choose? What happens to Muslims nations that are our allies, like Jordan? Or what about Muslim-majority countries like Malaysia? Do we stop granting visas? Of all sorts? (After all, the 9-11 attackers had visas.) Or do we only blocking refugees? If I have any firm position, it's that a blanket claim, "Let's stop letting Muslims in!" is risible for practical and strategic reasons in addition to ones of principle; I'm derisive because we might as well be talking in smart, detailed ways but instead we're taking time bickering over a reductive non-position.

1) What you call "sweeping generalizations" I call "taking people at their word." I have not cast aspersions on anyone by believing what they were willing to tell me in poll after poll. You either don't believe those polls, or are unwilling to see the results as a threat that justifies changing immigration because they doesn't represent every single human being on earth who identifies as Muslim.
2) This problem is less complex than you think. You're confusing complexity with magnitude.
3) It's not difficult to figure out how to stop the population of potentially radicalized Muslims from growing in the U.S. You aren't interested in taking any of the steps required to do that. Quite honestly, I think you find more value in letting the problem progress than you do in solving it, because you see the necessary steps as more offensive than the shit storm we'll be left with if we don't address it. Maybe it's because you are underestimating the fallout, I honestly don't know.

sometimes you're disingenuous
cite opinion polls about Muslim views in a particular country (Afghanistan); then talk about all Muslims; then say, "haha differences across the Muslim world not that important stop complaining about generalizations"

I'll keep repeating the same fucking goddamn thing over and over: I agree that extremism and fundamentalism are serious problems. But from the standpoint of sectarian beliefs and political exigencies across continents and nations, the Muslim world is complex. Stop slipping between national and global registers. It's dishonest and stupid.

at other times you're just a stubborn imbecile
the solution is SIMPLE duh but I'll never say exactly how any of my ideas could be implemented practically other than to say it's simple and easy except for libruls with their seemingly magical powers of political correctness

I'm shocked that a fundamentalist leader would claim that all followers of his religion (or should we say: all true followers of his religion) believe certain things. Those things being simplified literalist teachings.

Hey, look, here are some dudes who are gay and Muslim: http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/16/living/cnnphotos-gay-muslims/ Looks like they haven't sliced their own throats. Maybe the fundamentalist leader would reasonably modify his claim to "all Muslims minus n believe what I believe?" (I could raise that n personally by e-mailing some Muslims I know who don't believe in punishing homosexuality. But here's a wild guess: that n is in the millions!) Or perhaps he would just say, "Those aren't Muslims then!" in which case his comment is a tautological fiat rather than a useful description of the world.

I'm super glad the reductive teachings of a fundamentalist bolster your worldview. Sounds like a swell way to think and live.